The difference between apes and men is that the animal acts according to their nature, while man consistently denies his. The popular viewpoint is that man can become whatever he wishes and desires. Since his visions for attainment are limited only by his imagination, we are told that all is possible. Notions of progress, advance with every fancy, dreams of greatness with each progression, as fantasies become reality. Again we are told that man can create paradise on earth.

All these illusions are reassuring, as long as history can be re-written to expunge any unpleasantness, that may conflict with the neoteric superman. No room for the dark side of Nietzsche, only the image of achieving the impossible can stand the test for the future world. As each year passes, the remnants of past failures fade and drop into the memory hole. The design for universal advancement marches on, as regimentation becomes more advanced. Singular conduct is rewarded, while contrary action is punished. Agreement is exalted as long as it is approved, but dissent from the whole, will only bring redress.

The New World Order is based upon governance by the best to avoid the voices of the minimal. Isnít this the attitude that underlies the structure and institutions that manipulate global organizations? Assimilation requires conformity and compliance, for the vision is more important than its components. The power to apply the course for success means that the individual is an interference. The social good is equated with the scale of harmony in the conformity, as diversity acts as a mirror for the new found uniformity. Colors, hues, slants and genders only project the same submission to the progress that the race shares, even if some have allotments more worthy than others.

Is this paradise on earth? Or is this the invention of a human hell?

The ape, being an animal is not burdened with moral conduct. They act in accordance with their natural appetites and instincts. Surely, man is superior to the beast? His profuse record of inhumanity to man, is no reason to reject his superiority, for he is a work - whose process is still developing. Isnít the attainment of the progress promised, as recompense for submission, the rationale for this elevated form of behavior? Step by step and we all become the model citizen!

So it is, that the ape is free from such restraints as progress. It is not a he, because it cannot know or decide what is right or wrong. Definitely, man is superior to the beast - donít you agree? Why would any man hunger for the confinement of his nature, when he can be all that he can become? Just because apes are unable to act morally, they MUST be inferior to man. So how does the vanguard for the ascendancy of world unity explain the miserable failure of the moral component? Easy, it is insignificant to the climb for the advancement, only the regulation of the passage has value. Man need not worry about climbing trees, he must only trim the branches, and the fruit will be supplied to him.

How could a planet be ruled by apes while man walks upon this earth! Clearly, man has the capability to subjugate or even eliminate the ape, but does he have the ability to govern his own kind? No doubt man has ruled over his species, but has he advanced his humanity? That historic record that needs to be forgotten, strongly concludes that man has consistently been denying his own nature, and certainly not improving its character.

Apes donít have to be fluent in languages to communicate. They donít have to think in abstract concepts to adhere to their nature. All the time they act as they were created, as animals. Mankind, deceives his humankind by denying that segment and portion of his own nature, that requires discernment and responsibility for actions, conduct and behavior. The primate functions as it is supposed to act, but man habitually abandons the purpose of his being. So who is superior?

Man has shown every aspiration and tendency to destroy the planet, in order to rule its inhabitants. Does this practice sound like superior traits? Will capitulation to a dominion of submission make man human? The privileged few that strive to establish a world system of command and control, are not creating a paradise out of a jungle. They are not King Kong, but only the most ignoble of gorillas.

Modern manís arrogance leads most human creatures to deny their savage nature and more importantly their spiritual soul. Their licentiousness is not seen as a fundamental flaw, but is held out as a badge of evolutionary development. As long as this planet is ruled by a mastery of
Mattoids - those who suffers from moral insensibility, so that no bond of sympathy links him with his fellow man or with any living thing, and who is obsessed by vanity amounting to megalomania, preaches a doctrine of the Superman, who is to know no consideration and no compassion, be bound by no moral principle, but 'live his own life' without regard for others - HOPE will be rare.

The great ape is not a Ďbuffoon babooní, it seeks to be with their kind and protect their own Pongidae family. Dominance is relegated to leading their own group. Man betrays his own nature when he disavows his inborn ethereal purpose and strives to dominate his entire race. Just like in the ape family, each type does best when they live among their own tribe. When the globalists endeavor to commingle all groups and cultures into a single organism of political dominion, the unique aspect of diversity is lost forever, under the imperious dictate of the ruling cabal. Animals do not chase total dominance,  only man pursues such nightmares.

Judge for yourselves who actually behaves as an animal? Biblical dominion over the animals never implied total domination over all humanity. Our planetís fate hangs precariously at the edge of oblivion. The game of survival of the fittest has been transformed into the obsessions of the most corrupt. Evil exists, it lives and resides in the depraved global ruling class. Just maybe the ape can teach us a valuable lesson, if we are willing to look within ourselves.
-------------------------------------
SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit's formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. As a small business owner and entrepreneur, several successful ventures expanded opportunities for customers and employees. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. He is retired and lives with his wife in a rural community. Their daughter is a graduate of the University of London, and is working on an advance degree.

"Populism" best describes the approach to SARTRE's perspective on Politics. Realities, suggest that American Values can be restored with an appreciation of "Pragmatic Anarchism." Reforms will require an Existential approach. "Ideas Move the World," and SARTRE'S intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common sense, moral and traditional value culture for America.

Not seeking fame nor fortune, SARTRE's only goal is to ask the questions that few will dare ... Having refused the invites of an academic career because of the hypocrisy of elite's, the search for TRUTH is the challenge that is made to all readers. It starts within yourself and is achieved only with your sincere desire to face Reality.

So who is SARTRE? He is really an ordinary man just like you, who invites you to join in on this journey.

SARTRE is publisher of
BREAKING ALL THE RULES and is also the Content Liaison for EtherZone.com
-------------------------------------
The views expressed in this article may not necessarily be those of Alex Jones or Paul Joseph Watson.
-------------------------------------
PRISON PLANET.com        INFOWARS.com
E-MAIL THIS LINK
Enter recipient's e-mail:

Revisit the Planet of the Apes

By James Hall

A planet ruled by animals, not humans! How could such a world be and would it be any better? Certainly, such a question would be preposterous if answered: how could it be any worse . . . at least that response would be seen as cynical by most inhabitants. Hasnít the human species developed this globe and accomplished achievements that only intelligent life can understand and appreciate? Maybe so, from a technological feat; but what about the social component?